Those damn Democrats, they just want to steal someone else's money and promise it to another person in order to buy their vote, regardless of any fiscal responsibility or common sense. Plus they want to force those who actually pay in to the system to fund their own 'liberal' personal version of morality or lack of while the Democrat leaders themselves get rich. Liberal? They just want to liberate your heard earned money from your wallet and grossly misspend it on some poorly planned failure of an enormous project. They have no understanding that you can only spend what you don't have for so long before the bill comes due. IT'S DUE! Liberal? Barak Obama's economic policies are helping a handful of ultra rich make record profits, while middle income America dies. He is still using Bush's bank bailout plan because he and his cabinet are economic morons. Obama came along and far surpassed Bush's records for wasteful spending. Mr. Teleprompter is as clueless as his predecessor. (I wouldn't doubt that they work for the same entity.)

Those damn Republicans, they just want to make everyone adhere to their narrow version of morality, take your hard earned money and spend it on pet projects that make their rich powerful constituent leaders happy. They will misquote The Bible whenever it is convenient to further their Godless principles. They resemble the Pharisees that begged the Romans into executing Jesus Christ much more than his followers. Why do they care who can get married or not? Gee! Get past it...let folks get married whatever their orientation. They are only about 10% fiscally more responsible than their donkey Democrat foes, which means their version of the word Conservative is a farce. They will gladly drop your money in the form of bombs on some third world country so a buddy can make an enormous profit. Why in the hell did we go to Iran? WMDs? huh? WHERE? Conservative? G.W. Bush was no conservative as he set record government wasteful spending during his term. He smiled and played good ole boy while helping Haliburton reap the whirlwind! He was no good ole boy! Maybe just a Skulls & Bones playing his part. I'm sure we could ask WMM and he'd have a pretty good theory on that.

Bill Clinton must love Bush & Obama because they are making him look like a genius and reserving him a much higher status in history! I'd gladly vote for a President that gets blow jobs in the Oval Office if he'd at least be as good as Clinton was.

Join the Buzites!!! Buz for DICKtator of the world!

Of course they say power corrupts...

It's damned corrupt right now!

Okay, I'm a little pissed off. The last 12 years have eroded our future and no one currently in power is doing anything except make it worse. The Democrats and Republicans had their time and they both fucked us!

Actually that is not quite truth. What you are saying is fact for ancient Greece, specifically for Aten's polis, where everyone (at that time only adult men, with permanent residence in Atens) got a vote on all issues- decisions were made on the spot (square, in the middle of the city-polis), and they closed the case and moved to next issue. Ancient Greece is beginning of democracy we know today. In modern democracy and in the countries organized as republic, we have someone who is representing us, difference is that in democratic system minority cannot overrule majority, which is the case for republic system.

Sorry, but that's wrong. The Greek democracy meant that everyone eligeble to vote voted on every matter that the state had to make decisions on. In the modern day we have representative democracy; we elect a few people based on who gets the majority of the votes gets to take part in the decision making. Your average man on the street doesn't approve laws and budgets, but they choose who get to make those decision. The oldest form of the modern democracy you'll find starting up in around 800 AD in Scandinavia(maybe even before, but there's a lack of written sources on this). There every village agreed on a few members to represent the village in the "ting", which was pretty much the modern parliment or city council. The oldest continous democracy can be found on Iceland, where they have their parliment right next to the place where the original Ting was placed over a thousand years ago.

In what situation do you think average joe had a better chance to voice his opinion; 8000 people gathered at the same place all trying to speak at once(and thus the person with the loudest voice or most supporters gets to hold the floor) or the village meet and debate before sending their representatives off to the Ting?

DEMOCRACY CAN EITHER BE DIRECT OR INDIRECT; BUT IT REALLY ENCOMPASSES A BROAD RANGE; SO AS THE LIBERAL PEOPLE FINDS ENIGMATIC INTRICACY BECAUSE OF IT'S INDEFINITE AND "KNOTTY" MILIEU. IN ANCIENT TIMES, DIRECT DEMOCRACY WAS FIRST PRACTICED BY THE GREEK-CITY STATES, WHEREIN "THE PEOPLE ARE THE RULER" AND THE DECISION WILL ALWAYS DEPEND ON THE CONSENSUS OF THE CONSTITUENTS. IT BECAME A REPRESENTATIVE (OR INDIRECT) DEMOCRACY WHEN THE CITIES' RATE OF POPULATION AUGMENTED THAT A SINGLE ASSEMBLY OF ALL THE CONSTITUENTS IS TOO IMPOSSIBLE AND IMPRACTICAL. THEY ELECTED THEIR REPRESENTATIVES AND DITTO WERE GIVEN THE LEGAL POWER TO DECIDE IN ACCORDANCE OF THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

AND NOW, WE CONTINUE TO EMBRACE THESE CUSTOM BECAUSE OF OUR ADHERENCE ON THIS CLICHÈ : "GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND OF THE PEOPLE".

I HAVE BEEN CONTEMPLATING AND WILL, SURELY CONTINUE DOING A DELIBERATE ADJUDICATION ON THIS ISSUE:

WHAT'S THE BEST FORM OF DEMOCRACY?

--IF IT'S DIRECT, THEN THE "DIRECT" RULE OF THE PEOPLE MIGHT LEAD TO MOBOCRACY- "THE MANY-ER,THE STRONGER". OR ANARCHY- "SELF-RULE" BECAUSE OF THE UNLIMITED FREEDOM GRANTED TO THE CONSTITUENTS. (THAT MIGHT LEAD TO CHAOS)

-- OR WILL IT BE A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY? WHEREIN THE RULER WAS GIVEN CONSTITUTIONAL AND EMERGENCY POWERS AND RIGHTS- THAT INCLUDES THE SUPREME AUTHORITY TO GOVERN THE PEOPLE(AS LONG AS FOR THE "GENERAL WELFARE" ASSUMPTION), WHICH MIGHT OPEN THE FLOODGATE OF TYRANNY OR EVEN OLIGARCHY(RULE OF THE ELITE)?

THIS IS JUST THE THEORETICAL INTRICACY OF A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY. SORRY FOR THE ... LEEEEENNNGGTTTHHYY DISCUSSION.

I believe democracy by defination, government of the people, by the people, for the people, is and will remain merely an ideal to aim at.Surely an ideal is to work and strive for and yet not fully achieved at any stage.Setting an ideal is good to keep striving till we do find an alternative and better form of governance.We surely may go for referundum at cruicial issues, but not always.And involving in wars can not wait for the results of a referrundum.Greater participation of people, surely yes. But how to attain the ideal in a vast country with huge and diverse population like USA?Representative participation is good as long as the representatives and senators are responding to their electorate at the constituency level.Still we should always look out for greater participation.

I do agree that we should go for greater involved democracy and internet and IT does allow us to search for such involved participation.But we too should be willing to be involved. True, if we can't spare 30 minutes for a news, how can we, the common people get our involvement registered?But I do endore the efforts to enhance involvement and participation and still better ways of involving people should be looked for.Some years back, Greece had a law that every adult citizen must cast his/her vote and not casting vote was liable to be punished.Maybe, just maybe, we should find out something like that to work for the ideal.Even a blank vote, not favoring one party or the other should be counted as negative vote against the two party system.But again it may be taken against indiviual right of not to vote.We may keep on the look out.

Buz I don't know that there's been a decent party or President or congress (in charge) since I've been born. They've all been a bunch of war profiteering bastards.

I thought we were supposed to be the fuck out of Afghanistan a few years by this point. That's the campaign rhetoric I remember listening being belched out by the Prez in 2008.

Perhaps John F Kennedy was the last best hope we had (and of course THEY killed that poor SOB), so that should tell ya something.

An excellent point WMM.

I find it very interesting that recent studies have shown while all members of the US Congress from both parties profit greatly and multiply their wealth while in office, that on average Democrats are increasing that wealth at a faster rate than Republicans. Though it is only by a small amount.

When are the people of the USA going to wake up and realize that those two parties preach nothing but hypocrisy and kick them out of office. Like ignorant obedient sheep America continues to vote in a corrupt two party system.

Sorry, but that's wrong. The Greek democracy meant that everyone eligeble to vote voted on every matter that the state had to make decisions on. In the modern day we have representative democracy; we elect a few people based on who gets the majority of the votes gets to take part in the decision making.

I thought I said the same thing, but am confused now

elitfromnorth wrote:

Your average man on the street doesn't approve laws and budgets, but they choose who get to make those decision. The oldest form of the modern democracy you'll find starting up in around 800 AD in Scandinavia(maybe even before, but there's a lack of written sources on this). There every village agreed on a few members to represent the village in the "ting", which was pretty much the modern parliment or city council. The oldest continous democracy can be found on Iceland, where they have their parliment right next to the place where the original Ting was placed over a thousand years ago.

As everything, even democracy developed as well..(and I really thought that I said the same thing, but never the less..) That is why I said 'is beginning'; but typing this now, I realized that maybe for better understanding between us, I should use something like: 'Greece is founder of democracy. Word itself comes from that time. Greece is founder of organized world we know today.'But than someone could/should rebut this, because there were elder organized civilizations before ancient Greece...However I do remember something about Scandinavian democracy, have to say that my history knowledge doesn't support facts you claim to be.

elitfromnorth wrote:

In what situation do you think average joe had a better chance to voice his opinion; 8000 people gathered at the same place all trying to speak at once(and thus the person with the loudest voice or most supporters gets to hold the floor) or the village meet and debate before sending their representatives off to the Ting?

Here endeth the lesson.

Democracy isn't 100%, its impossible for every Joe to be heard, but majority of all participants is. To answer your question who has 'better chance', I have to say, when something is in the process of changes, average has nothing to do with it.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.